Total posts: 3,192
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
There can be no conversation if you refuse to discuss the specific meaning of specific words.
And yet conversation persists without it.
There can be no conversation if you refuse to describe the thing you assert "exists".
No, you cannot pigeonhole a description that isn't lexically semantic.
Scritino-waves exist. I know Scritino-waves exist because their existence is not contingent on a description.
Okay.
(B) what do you mean by "god" and what do you mean by "exist"?
(A) i refuse to describe gods and i also refuse to define existence.
Disingenuous. I've already given you a description of existence in a previous discussion. If you'd like me to repeat it, all you have to do is ask. As for God, are there other descriptions for gods? Please elaborate.
(B) so you've basically said, "all potatoes exist".
All potatoes do exist. I trust that's not up for dispute?
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
What is the context? When you ask for proof of existence, what effect is this evidence to inform? Materialist? Idealist? Or does the distinction not matter at all? If I were to coach one on presenting an argument for the existence of God, I would inform them to highlight the significance abstracts have in rationalizing existence, and that it's logically dissonant to claim that abstracts, whether "rigorously defined" or "purely imaginative," do not "exist," while using abstracts as a gauge for determining that which exist and that which does not. I would also coach them to point out that since we possess and are possessed by our own minds, we'd have to be able to control for an existence independent of our mind's bias--meaning, you isolate it, and you observe it's behavior. How do you perceive without the influence of your mind?Would this context demand evidence?
That's the reason I asked you this question, which you've yet to answer: "what is your understanding of physicality without the imaginary concepts which help you rationalize it, i.e. mathematics, science, and logic?"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Which is why homeless people have no problem leaving feces on public property.It is not "their land"it is "our land"
And because we share a collective consciousness, it was our will that feces be dumped on public property. No dispute, there; no demand for a device that may resolve a potential dispute because no individual has his own interest.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Okay, good. Now, if there were evidence to support your proof of said god, would you use it?
Depends on the context. If the context demands evidence, then of course.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@billbatard
explain how it is a thing then, i'm stupid explain it to me
"Society" is an aggregate/circuit of individuals. And because they're individuals, they at times can share similar subjective values, or sustain conflicting values. Property is a mechanism which best resolves disputes over the services of a good or resource by creating a standard premised on an objective self-interest (e.g. exclusive control over one's homestead, labor, skills, etc.) Property extends, for lack of better terms, an innate sense of possession to that which is serviceable to their own self-interests, including the option to appropriate it to themselves exclusively. As long as this mechanism is respected by each individual, it will produce the optimal means to resolve any dispute among them which may arise.
Again that is why we have a Constitution the Constitution decides how is the constittution agreed upon it was writen long ago and amendment now and then by 2/3rds vote so in the end we the people do decide to curb our own power
If democratic decision isn't the ultimate arbiter in social interaction, then who or what is? Who decides that the constitution is the final authority and why? Democracy? Isn't that a contradiction?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@billbatard
Because property is a thing. It's a mechanism for dispute resolution.How is in not? why do you assume property is actually a thing, it isnt to me
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@billbatard
So there are aspects of social interaction that will not be subject to democratic decision. Who decides and why?this is why we have a constitution and limits on democracy
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@billbatard
How is it "everyone's land"?excuse me your land? no see thats the problem thats everyones land
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@billbatard
@billbatard:
So, let's apply your reasoning in a different context, and test the consistency of your moral and ethics.
I am part of a group of twelve. They elected me their leader. There are 10 men, and two women in total. I propose a referendum where if the vote were to go through, all the men would have to rape all the women. Naturally, the women vote against the prospect of their own rape. Three other men dissent. The vote goes through in a majority decision of 7 to 5. Your resolution to this would be to tell the women: "you will be free to leave we wont kep you here dont let the door hit your ass, it wont be a prison prsions dont leave the door unlocked if you dont like treatment you leave and good luck to you else where" even if it means being coerced out of their lands?
@Greyparrot:
It's the lesser of evils; but evil, even lessened, is still evil. Though, I will say, it's quite amusing that Bay Area residents are fleeing to Nevada given California's staunch support for destructive "left-wing" policy.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
A RIGOROUS DEFINITION NECESSARILY LEADS TO AN INEVITABLE CONCLUSION
Note the indefinite article. It leads to a conclusion.
If something were to exist, it would have real being whether material [verifiable Quanta] or spiritual [unverifiable Qualia].
Your modification is extraneous; unless it's mentioned in my citation, it's not relevant.
Citation please.
The Bible or the Torah.
Not quite.
Yes, quite. Absent of your attempt to modify my citation, the argument is logically coherent.
You've basically asserted that a god is an unverifiable.
No, I've "basically" argued nothing of the sort. Your modifications once again are irrelevant; point out the "rigorously defined" description in my citation that accounts for qualia and quanta.
an appeal to vagueness is an appeal to ignorance. This is hardly definitive.
No one thus far has argued anything ambiguous; if there were an appeal to ambiguity, then it would be an equivocation, not an appeal to ignorance. Furthermore, since when is discussion restricted to the definitive? Discussion can be exploratory. I even used the term "explore" in a previous comment.
In other words, you actually enjoy debating pure, uncut OPINION.
No, in your words, which are incorrect. And my enjoyment is irrelevant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@billbatard
But I'm already on my land. Will your socialist democracy seize my lands and force me out?anywhere you want just leave our socialist lands
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Abstracts (like first order logic and mathematics) are RIGOROUSLY DEFINED and coherent and independently verifiable (Quanta).Pure imagination is unverifiable Qualia.
How does this create a distinction in the manner in which they exist? All you've done is ascribe adjectives. It would be like my stating, Person A is an arduous individual, incredibly learned, high esteemed, and a dedicated communitarian, while person B would fly under anyone's radar. That doesn't change that both Person A and Person B exist, much less exist differently--however you mean it.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you sure? How do abstracts differ from "imaginary things" as it concerns the manner in which they exist?The logical incoherence is in asserting that abstracts don't exist [in the exact same way as imaginary things] while simultaneously subjecting existence to an abstract [rigorous definition].
You should be able to easily refute this with a simple counter-factual.
I should... but I won't because it's not my onus. Not yet, anyway.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
And there is still, no real evidence of a particular gods existence.Only assumption.
Substantiate your assertion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Economics is variable data, so therefore one must expect variable output.
Economics is the reasoning, not the data.
So your impression is one example of variable data output. As was that of Nemiroff.
Cite the specific statement.
You either respect society as a human collective or you do not. People are real and money is an associated construct.
How is this a "factor"?
Social justice is what it is and once again your impression is your impression.
It's not an impression; it's an analysis.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I do not contest a stipulated definition per se, but if we were to have a debate using a "rigorous and explicit" definition, then it would be entirely dictated by that definition. Case in point:I don't understand how you can imagine that you can formulate a logical statement without rigorous and explicit definitions.
If something were to exist, it would have real being whether material or spiritual. (Merriam Webster Dictionary.)
God has real spiritual being. (Holy Texts.)
Therefore, God exists.
That is logically coherent. Debate over, right?
I use broad definitions in order to facilitate a conceptual context rather than one informed arbitrarily/conveniently by selected definitions. Furthermore, using broad definitions allows each party to challenge the other's premise using argument rather than dictionaries.
This is a TAUTOLOGICAL STATEMENT.
No it's not, it's an accurate assessment.
Undiscovered (OR) lost (OR) secret evidence is INDISTINGUISHABLE from NO EVIDENCE.
And who here but you has argued or postulated undiscovered, lost, or secret evidence? Are you not just projecting in this non sequitur? Your assertions are contradicting a counterargument no one made.
This statement is necessarily true based on extremely common and widely accepted definitions.
"Widely accepted" in and of itself does not inform veracity; therefore, it cannot be the basis of that which is necessarily true.
Please challenge my axioms and or point out a specific logical error and or provide a counter-factual.
Why? I have no obligation.
I say, the available evidence is indistinguishable from no-evidence (tautological statement of fact).You say, nuh-uh (which implies that you believe the opposite is true, which you refuse to state, which constitutes an appeal to ignorance).
My beliefs don't matter in this context. My entry into this discussion was to see PressF4Respect meet his obligation to his own argument. (He did in turn ask that I elaborate on my fairy statement.) When you submitted your comment, I knew you were attempting to manipulate me into assuming the Con position. Hence, "No. Good attempt, though." I'll make my rationalizations; you'll make your rationalizations; we'll dispute over particular words and our obviously subjective qualifications of them. The only arguments I've provided were in effect towards PressF4Respect's logical form. Even in my response to you, and you can confirm this, I don't address your statement at all, instead bringing it back to PressF4Respect. This is PressF4Respect's argument, and depending on his proof, I will assume proponency, neutrality/indifference, or contention.
If we don't share some basic, foundational concepts (common-ground-word-definitions), then we can never properly communicate.
I know that which you attempt to communicate, but all you'd need to do is to hark back to your selected "widely accepted" definition where your premise won't be challenged.
I love it. You're one of those "written in stone" people.
...sure.
Created:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Well I'm just concerned about the original premise of the thread. All one would have to do is make an evidence-based argument for a particular god to render this premise void. In the debate I previously cited, I was arguing for the Christian God over all others from the authenticity and accuracy of the Bible as an historical document (evidence). Regardless of whether one agrees with me, I have made an argument using evidence.At this point, it would seem that the original premise would be nullified, or you would have to show why my argument lacks evidence and is not theistic. However, to simply say that you don't find the evidence compelling or logically coherent should not be grounds to say it is no evidence at all. It's just evidence you don't agree with.
Exactly. And this is a concern PressF4Respect may have to address pending his full proof. I too have argued for the existence of God(s.) And my argument was impeccable. It wasn't that my rationalization was "logically incoherent," which has become an umbrella term for premises with which 3RU7AL, and others perhaps, disagrees. When reduced to its fundamental elements, the arguments then become disputes over the meaning of particular words, and not logical structure or form--or even thesis--of the argument. The logical incoherence is in asserting that abstracts don't exist while simultaneously subjecting existence to an abstract.
But there's another concern with PressF4Respect's argument, and it has to do with Theism itself. Theism is spiritual. And one of his challenges is going to address the verifiable and/or falsifiable in the context of spiritual beliefs. I'm sure it'll be an interesting read.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
All arguments (that use common language) are by definition, semantic.
I stand corrected. I should have stated lexically semantic.
If you'd like to argue that undiscovered (OR) lost (OR) secret evidence IS DISTINGUISHABLE from NO EVIDENCE, please simply present that argument and stop appealing to ignorance.
This is an appeal to ignorance. I have no burden to provide an argument for an assertion you made. I have no intention of arguing over lexicon, and that's my point. PressF4Respect presented his assertion, and has as of yet to provide its proof, so if there's issue over the meaning of his statements, then he can accommodate your concerns.
Now if I were to press you over that which constitutes logical coherency, I presume it will be reduced to an argument over lexical semantics. As I stated before, I intend only to delve the conceptual nature of being.
Created:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Does that change in word usage to "logically coherent" somehow make my argument strictly deistic rather than theistic?
Unbeknownst to 3RU7AL, 3RU7AL is making a roundabout argument once rejected, and that's perception = reality. Logic is a concept. It's used to rationalize our perception. In other words, it's a tool of perception. If existence is subject to logical coherency, then what in effect is being stated?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I suppose so. Would've been an interesting topic, though.His post is far more relevant than the clickbait title.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Yes.If you were able to prove your particular god existed without resorting to general ontological arguments, would you? That is what I’m trying to get at.
I’m currently laying the groundwork with sound logic we can both (hopefully) agree upon to prevent my argument from being reduced into oblivion via semantics.
Good.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
Perhaps it would be best to start by describing how Islam conceives its notions of women, and provide your reasoning which supports the thesis of this topic.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
(EITHER) there is no logically coherent evidence that exclusively supports the existence of a particular god (OR) there is logically coherent evidence that exclusively supports the existence of a particular god.(IFF) there is logically coherent evidence that exclusively supports the existence of a particular god (THEN) it is (EITHER) undiscovered (OR) lost (OR) secret.(IFF) logically coherent evidence that exclusively supports the existence of a particular god is (EITHER) undiscovered (OR) lost (OR) secret (THEN) it is indistinguishable from NO LOGICALLY COHERENT EVIDENCE THAT EXCLUSIVELY SUPPORTS THE EXISTENCE OF A PARTICULAR GOD.
Your argument is repeatedly semantic. Hence, you've demonstrated a tendency to add qualifications like "indistinguishable" and "functionally" in your arguments (hence, shifts the argument over to definitions of functional and distinguishable.) PressF4Respect's argument is that because Theists don't use evidence--qualification notwithstanding, the evidence therefore must not exist. Can you find no flaw in this reasoning?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Mind my asking what piqued your interest in this topic?I have never been interested in astrology, or studied it in any way
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
he just says, "they exist because I can believe in them".
Well... I don't just say that. My reasoning is impeccable. Sometimes the simplest explanations are the ones which suffice.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
No. Good attempt, though.An undiscovered, lost, or secret proof is functionally identical to NO PROOF.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
If people were trying to prove something, they would use evidence.
...or argument.
It’s good. I am currently proving to a stickler that people would use evidence to prove something. Unnecessary, tedious stuff, but it’s going well. Returning the favour, how is your fairy proof going?
Good. My argument is already prepared (it isn't my first go-around.) To prevent any stalls or tangents to our current discussion, I'm merely waiting on your fully constructed proof. Once you're done and submit your argument, I'll supply my elaboration.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nemiroff
sorry for the distraction. the politics are foreign to you so that was a dead end.
It's not foreign to me; I just don't pay attention much anymore. Modern politics is pageantry.
as you said, the model presumes homogenity (all factors equal), my variables are those factors, and if they are unequal the model fails.
The model doesn't fail per se. It's a generalization, so it doesn't capture all individual circumstances.
for example, no matter how much you hike the price of medicine, demand wont decrease until the people who need them die.
Not true at all. What about generics? One of the current and primary issues with the cost of medicine are drug patents. If the government were to remove its sanctions of these patents, drugs would a lot cheaper, given that generics wouldn't be stalled from market entry for about 10 years. This is an example of how freeing the market (removing government regulation) makes products cheaper (competition, i.e. entry of generics.) The demand is merely a response to government sanction monopolies/oligopolies select drug companies sustain in the industry.
As I said, history has shown people will willfully agree to whatever conditions they are presented with, including slavery. Corporations provide the bulk of employment and they dont negotiate. this is the wage, take it or leave. leaving means no food, so they take it.
One cannot willfully agree to a slave contract because it's a slave contract. And, I would imagine that corporations provide the bulk of employment otherwise, the laborers would be either self-employed or unemployed. You however as of yet not demonstrated the reasons laborers are entitled to more than the offers of said corporations.
as costs go up, if wages stay the same, more and more people will be priced out of the economy, then the economy collapses.
So then, why is the solution to force a price floor rather than address the increasing costs?
logic can work both ways, but only one way is real, and minimum wage hikes have not shown any losses of jobs besides one industry, the restaurant industry. while other industries actually boomed and made up the difference.
Job losses and unemployment aren't one in the same. One is disemployment, the other is the populace out of the labor force. The minimum wage creates unemployment by pricing out low-skilled labor. That is, for example, a person whose marginal productivity is $14.99 and below, would be priced out of the labor market because of a $15 minimum. It's not that the person loses his job; he can't get one (legally.)
results speak for themselves.remember, these corporations are highly profitable. they aren't struggling, and a few have treasuries larger then some nations.
I'm already familiar with this study. The study doesn't outright state that its conclusions suggest moderate increases to the minimum wage (usually to reflect inflation) doesn't result in significant job losses. However, that study doesn't address at all whom the minimum wage prices out, just the effect on those who already have a job in the food service industry, all other industries not withstanding.
i'm all for small business exceptions if needed, but these goliaths crying victim is pathetic. they're just getting richer selling you idealistic propaganda.
What's the idealistic propoganda? And what do these Goliaths owe a laborer in their offer of employment?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Do you subscribe to astrology?Will this be the end of the Christian era? And what will the New Age of Aquarius bring?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nemiroff
A promise to tie this back to your question of the invisible hand in the very next post, but please humor me:What are your feelings on trump's trade war with china?
I don't have "feelings" on the matter, because truth be told, I don't pay much attention to U.S. politics. My conclusion on this "trade war" is that it's nonsensical as both China and the U.S. are worse off. Trump is only making domestic labor a lot more expensive by extending these tariffs (in effect taxes) on Chinese products. China's retaliation won't bode well for the U.S. automobile and crude oil industries. Nevertheless, this pageant of presidential bravado is par for the course.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
In this system of "social democracy," would individuals be allowed leave to exercise their prerogative in exiting the system?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Christen
The minimum wage creates unemployment by pricing out low-skilled labor which falls below the price floor. It takes those whose marginal productivity doesn't meet the state arbitration and makes their employment illegal. Using your video as an example, I wonder whether those who write these policies have asked their supposed constituents whether they'd rather work for $7.25 or nothing.Minimum wages usually don't help the poorest people that they're supposed to help and this youtube video explains it in more detail.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
What does this mean?Economics is not set in stone.
Therefore your economics is also "your impression".
Which one of my statements is an "impression"? Furthermore, what is "my economics"?
Nonetheless, minimum wage is not simply about pure economics, other factors need to be taken into account.
...like?
A world leader and world example setter such as the U.S.A cannot pontificate on the world stage if it fails to address social justice at home .
Social justice is not about justice; it's about a infantilizing a populace under the pretext of "entitlement" rather than a system of rights.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Let me ask you a dumb rhetorical question:If you were trying to prove something, would you use the most convincing evidence available to prove that thing?
"Most convincing" is an irrelevant qualification; the evidence either helps to prove or is of no consequence.
Also I'm still waiting for your explanation on how fairies exist in the real, physical universe.
In due time, I'll elaborate in the appropriate thread. First thing's first, how's your progress in constructing your proof?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nemiroff
First factor is need. In supply vs demand freshman class you learn that if you raise the price too high, people will stop buying.
No. You learn that the law of demand delineates that as the price of a commodity increases the quantity demanded decreases, not that people would stop buying. Also the law of supply and demand is a model which presumes homogeneity (all factors equal.) Hence, I inquired about these "variables."
except for markets like medicine. When it comes to your life, like with insulin but also many other medications, who cares about money. You will pay anything.
Because the price elasticity of demand in that industry is relatively inelastic. So hikes in wages can be extended to the final product, of which the AMA, for example, takes advantage.
There are other examples of this, like transportation. there is a big gap in upfront cost between transportation and vehicle ownership, which leaves alot of room for unjustified price gouging. People need to get to work.
Provide an example.
You will say competition will solve this, but in the real world competitors can communicate, and collude.
Do they? If they're competitors, how do they "collude"? Which markets has this collusion affected, whether past or current?
This has happened before until the government made it illegal. Competition is the friend of capitalism, but the enemy of capitalists (owners).
When has it happened it before?
I think history has proven people will work under some terrible conditions if they dont have options. So claiming some invisible hand will set the right wages might work in a mom and pop tiny economy where there are nearly as many bosses as workers.... but not in the modern goliath economy.
The "invisible hand" doesn't claim to "set the right wages;" it claims to facilitate free labor contracts where buyers and sellers of labor can establish arrangements to which each party willfully agrees.
Low wage workers are given few options, even while doing crucial, heavy work simply because there are a ton of other workers.
Yes, it's known as the Law of Diminishing Marginal Productivity.
The value of their work means nothing if the value of the worker is zero. I dont think citizens of the richest nation in the world should be treated this way, nor will this sustain a consumer driven economy.
That is your impression; that is not Economics.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
P1: There are people who wish to prove the existence of their specific god (this is evident).P2: If there was compelling evidence for their specific god, then they would use it (inferred logic).P3: There is currently no one using said evidence (this is the premise I will prove).C1: Therefore, there is no evidence for a specific god.
P2 is not inferred; it's the premise you are required to substantiate in order to validate your conclusion (and you've been eliding this burden this whole time.) Once again, the logical form does not create truth; it creates logical connections between truths (e.g. truth table.) Hence inductive logic primarily operates assuming the truth of your premises, rather than "infer" the truth of your premises. Essentially your forms are stating this:
If this [If there's evidence for a particular God's existence, then people arguing for the existence of that particular god would be using it to prove their own god's existence] were true, and this [People aren't using evidence to prove their own god (theistic evidence), instead they only use evidence to prove the existence of a god figure in general (deistic evidence)] were true, then this conclusion [Therefore, there's no evidence for a particular God's existence] would be true.
Since you've claimed a statement to be true (i.e. therefore, there's no evidence for a particular God's existence) you must substantiate all of your premises, not arbitrarily select the one which you assume requires validation. If neither of your premises were true, then your conclusion wouldn't be true.
Note that P1 is extraneous information and isn't required in your syllogism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nemiroff
Im with the dems that we need a minimum wage. Cause supply and demand are subject to many more variables and the invisible hand is nonsense.But a flat nation wide 15 is insane. It would work great for cities, but it would decimate rural communities with much lower cost of living, and much smaller economies.
Such as?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@billbatard
Propoganda , why? because it disagrees with you stupid world view?
Because it arbitrarily selects certain bits of information as bases for a misleading synthesis, i.e. correlating government involvement with "happiness." Perhaps next time, you'll read the actual reports, and not just parrot the propaganda of the article across which you've come. That way, you'll understand the context under which the information was derived.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
If there's evidence for a particular God's existence, then people arguing for the existence of that particular god would be using it to prove their own god's existence.People aren't using evidence to prove their own god (theistic evidence), instead they only use evidence to prove the existence of a god figure in general (deistic evidence).Therefore, there's no evidence for a particular God's existence.
Good. Now substantiate your premises. Note that in order for you to substantiate your antecedent, it must be argued as a material/logical biconditional. That is, p iff q, or "there's evidence for a particular God's existence" if and only if "people arguing for the existence of that particular god would [use] it to prove their own god's existence."
The only thing I need to prove is the bolded portion (which was the original assertion that 3RUTAL made in the previous thread), which I am in the process of doing right now. This is what I'm trying to tell you.Understand?
No, you need to prove both the antecedent and the consequent, your major and minor premises. Modus Tollens is a logical form which communicates a rational connection of truths. It does not substantiate your premise (i.e. "create truth.") Here's an example:
If an individual liked apples, he or she would be 35 years old.
This individual is not 35 years old;
Therefore, this individual does not like apples.
This argument form only validates your conclusion if your premises are true. You must substantiate the condition of your antecedent, and the only way you can do that is to substantiate the logical biconditional. Take that into mind during your process.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Using the modus tollens argument I made in the previous thread,If there is a theistic argument, then theists would use it.If no theists are using theistic arguments, then there is no theistic evidence.Theists are resorting to deistic arguments in the absence of theistic ones.Therefore, there is no theistic argument.I can reduce the original assertion to this:No theist has ever made a theistic argument.
Like I've stated before, this is an argument from ignorance. Not only does it not address the very argument you made, you're, once again, affirming your own assertion by citing the lack of evidence to its contrary. This is your argument using the Modus Tollens construction:
If p (there's evidence for a particular God's existence,) then q.
Not q.
Therefore not p (there's no evidence for a particular God's existence.) [Note that this thread's namesake is your conclusion.]
I've already completed half of it for you. Now you just need to provide your consequential statement. Once that's done, you support your premises, antecedent and your consequential statement because the Modus Tollens is inductive logic.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Your argument is that "there's no evidence for a particular God's existence." Support your assertion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
@PressF4Respect:
The reason I want this in a debate instead of in a forum setting is because, given the complexity of the argument, it would require a separate debate to prove/satisfy.
Then create another thread. If the argument is as complex as you say, then we'll need more than a five round limit. Not to mention, if others want to participate in the discussion, they have discretion to weigh in.
@3RU7AL:
Pick a specific god and I will explain exactly why it cannot possibly exist due to logically contradictory descriptions.
I've told you before that not only does God exist, but also that all gods exist. In that same discussion, I argued that the existence of anything is not contingent on a particular description, and I believe that I used a description of myself as an example. Even if you were to demonstrate a logical contradiction, that is not the same as a refutation of God's existence.
In the absence of a logically coherent description, I reject the validity of all gods (except SPINOZA'S GOD OF COURSE!!!).
And that's your prerogative in the context of that which you accept or reject, but then again, that is not the topic of discussion.
I only accept the existence of phenomena that are scientifically quantifiable and or logically necessary (based on the definition of "existence" also known as REAL-TRUE-FACTS).
There are many definitions of "existence" or "to exist" and thus, any extension of definitions will primarily result in arguments over semantics.
You are making an "argument from ignorance" basically saying that because (not-rigorously-defined) fairies and gods can't be disproven (in your opinion) that they cannot be said to "not-exist" (you're also ignoring the definition of "exist").
Not even remotely. Read my argument. I stated that I believe God exists because I can--an argument over which we've had an extensive debate. The validity of this logic is not at all contingent on capacity to falsify. And I'm not ignoring the definition of "exist" because there is no definition of exist; there are definitions--and if I sought an insubstantial debate over semantics, I'd cite the merriam-webster definition--to have actual being whether material or spiritual, and that would be the end of it. But rather than argue definitions, I seek a conceptual exploration into the nature of being, where one requires more than just a dictionary to delve.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
I was referring to 3RUTAL’s first post of this thread, and the argument made in it.
And I challenged the integrity of each of 3RU7AL's statements. 3RU7AL's argument is that he accepts intelligent design as the premise for deistic arguments, but not theistic arguments. This however does not provide evidence that intelligent design is an exclusively deistic premise. When I argued that intelligent design has its origins which preceded Deism, he extended his argument in concession or in spite of it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
No, I'd rather discuss the premise in the forums rather than subject it to vote.If you want to debate me on this specific premise (since you kinda already are), then I’ll happily oblige.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Yes.Answer me this question: Do fairies exist in the real, physical universe we inhabit?
Now will you answer me this one question: what is your understanding of physicality without the imaginary concepts which help you rationalize it, i.e. mathematics, science, and logic?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
@PressF4Respect:
If you go to the debate section and look at all the debates (for whatever reason), you will notice that in some debates, the Instigator waives the first round. The reason people do this is because it would be extremely impractical to BoP a negative claim first round. So in a debate, what I did would be considered valid.
This is incorrect. I, myself, have instigated a debate over which I would assume the Con position. I did not find it "impractical" to satisfy my onus, then. In fact, I would not have instigated the debate if I wasn't prepared to satisfy my burden of proof. Common practice does not speak to validity.
Anyways, since you insist on it, I'll fulfill your BoP requirement in the simplest way I can think of.
It's not my requirement; it's the onus placed on your argument by your own assertion.
I will be using modus tollens to prove that there is no theistic evidence that mankind has yet created.The premise of modus tollens is as follows [1]:If P, then Q. (premise – material implication)If not Q, then not P. (derived by transposition)Not Q . (premise)Therefore, not P. (derived by modus ponens)Applied to this case, the logical structure of the proof looks like this:If there is a theistic argument, then theists would use it.If there is no such argument, then no theists would use it.Theists are resorting to deistic arguments in the absence of theistic ones (as evidenced by this thread).Therefore, there is no theistic argument.
Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens are valid inductive forms and can be properly constructed if in fact you can substantiate your premises; you have not substantiated your premises; therefore, you have not properly constructed the Modus Tollens. (See what I did there?)
According to the above proof, until the day that theists start using theistic arguments, it can be logically proven that no such argument exists.
What proof? You have not substantiated your premises. There has yet to be any demonstration of evidence by this thread. 3RU7AL's videos at best are subject to interpretation, and the only contribution you've made to the discussion is to assert that Theists use deistic arguments because evidence for their "particular God," outside of holy texts, does not exist. Not to mention, the argument you've used to construct the modus tollens is still an argument from ignorance because you're still placing the referendum on the Theistic argument to inform your assertion. This is the argument you have a burden to substantiate:
The reason theists use deist arguments is because there is no evidence (outside of holy texts) of the existence of their particular god.
Not speculation into a theist's reasons.
Happy now?
My "happiness" should matter to neither you nor this discussion.
Also, please elaborate on how my fairy logic was unsound.
You are arguing from ignorance. If the description of the logical fallacy does not suffice, then perhaps this aphorism will: the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Also I think there was a misunderstanding about #14. It was basically what a theistic argument is trying to prove (that there is specific evidence for one particular god/set of gods which cannot be applied to any other). Oh well, at least this’ll make you stop whatever you were going to say about my “argument from ignorance”
"What a theist is trying to prove?" has nothing to do with my inquiry. My inquiry is solely based on your assertion that there is no evidence for this God. Your resolution suggests reconciliation in that Theists have yet to provide evidence for this God, rather than your supporting your claim that there is no such evidence. And that is argument from ignorance.
@ludofl3x:
How do you argue against the response "I've not been presented with any compelling evidence that any god, much less a specific version of god, exists. I will gladly examine evidence if you have it to present."?
I don't because that's not the argument PressF4Respect made. There's a fundamental difference between stating "evidence has yet to be discovered," and "there is no evidence." The former is epistemological protocol while the latter is ontological supposition. Second, if you're going to use a qualification like "compelling" then you're treading outside the realm of logic and science, and entering subjective value. If you're going to entertain your own values, then it's nothing short of hypocritical to condemn others for doing the same.
Do you present the evidence you have (which I hope is more compelling than "we make conclusions about god x y z all the time, therefore it exists, because this would also seem to imply that Superman "exists" in the same way the bible god does: as imaginary creations).
Your value is not the rubric by which evidence is determined. That is, it's not required to be "compelling." If you do a little digging, you might find a thread here started by TheAtheist, which I believe was named "Why Do You believe God Exists?" where I submitted a pithy statement: "I believe God exists because I can." Everything one/we perceive(s) must exist; I perceive God (the distinction between audition, cognition, gustation, olfaction, somatosensation, and vision notwithstanding;) therefore God must exist. (Feel free to challenge this logic.)
I don't completely rule out the possibility that God is imaginary, much in the same way I don't completely rule out the possibility that everything we perceive is imaginary (or at the very least, contains fundamental elements of imagination a la colors, shapes, numbers, direction, logic, concept, etc.) The irony is, we've used our imaginations to conceive concepts like Mathematics and Science to aid us in rationalizing our environment, yet the atheist, usually in some cognitive dissonance, uses imagination as means to trivialize God and religion.
And Superman does exist, otherwise I don't know what I'm looking at when I watch Supergirl.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
There are only two possible stances that you could take for this subject: either there is evidence for theism or there isn’t. Since no evidence has been provided, the stance that there is no evidence for theism is the default position.
This is an argument from ignorance, an informal logical fallacy which delineates that your posit is validated by lack of evidence to its contrary. There's no "default" position. You still have the burden to support your claim. It works both ways: just like a theist cannot use your lack of disproving their claim as information for their claim, you cannot use their lack of proof for their claims as information for yours--i.e. the default position is that there's no evidence.
Proving that there is no evidence for theism would require me to comb through literally every single webpage, book, and other source of information in existence. This is extremely impractical, if not impossible, to do. It’s like having to scour every single cubic centimeter of space in the universe just to prove that fairies don’t exist.
Then perhaps it would be prudent to refrain from proposing arguments you find impractical to substantiate.
And this logic you apply is unsound.Until someone provides evidence that fairies exist, it can be concluded that they don’t. Same logic applies to this case as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
This is categorically erroneous. The burden of proof rests with the one who posits a claim, whether it affirms or negates. You are stating in effect that "the nonexistence of evidence for God's existence" is true. The logical inversion of your argument demonstrates that you are in fact making a "true" statement or in this context, a positive claim. Failure to substantiate your negative assertion does not inform the positive assertion, and vice versa less you fall into an argument from ignorance. Essentially, if you posit an assertion, the burden of proof rest on you to support it. My inquiry isn't designed to inform the theistic assertion, but your claim and your claim alone that there's no evidence. How do you know this? Once again, please elaborate.Theists believe that there is one god (specifically their god). Likewise, a Theistic Argument would be positing for the existence of a very specific god/set of gods. If this were a debate, the burden of proof would be placed on the person arguing that there is specific evidence for the existence of a particular god/set of gods. Since I posited a negative assertion, the burden of proof would not be on me to prove that there is NO evidence for theism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
@ludofl3x
@PressF4Respect
@ 3RU7AL:
Those are not deistic arguments. First with Bill Stein, as Dawkins pointed out, he presumed a "who." He then uses the intelligent design argument to reveal Dawkins' blatant attempt at arguing from ignorance. Dinesh D'Souza, argues if anything, that the [deist rationale] originated with the ancient Hebrews. So it wouldn't be a deist argue more so than a Hebrew argument.Of course, he's wrong, as intelligent design can be traced as far back as the ancient Sumerians.
Regardless of its origin and historical context, it remains an argument that supports DEISM exclusively.
No, the origin does matter. Your accepting the intelligent design rationale for the deistic premise doesn't make intelligent design exclusively deistic.
That's literally the ONLY claim DEISM makes.
Deism posits a metaphysically transient entity with which man can neither interact nor perceive. Its only function, in a sense, was to initiate. It remains, according to Deists, a "non-interventionist."
Please explain.
Easy: if "God" is this metaphysically transient entity with which man can neither interact nor perceive, then how is it that they can render conclusions about the characteristics and functions of said God? Even if one were to simply extend the rationale of "everything must follow logic," this metaphysical entity would also have conform to this rationale. Hence, God, too, is confined to logic. Since man has the capacity for logic, man would also have to capacity to perceive God. And Deism argues that God cannot be perceived, acknowledged, etc.
As for Atheism, it posits that no God exist or that God does not exist. Now if one is going to take the route that Atheism is merely a "non-belief," than it's a non-belief with no substantial premise. If one can neither verify nor falsify the existence of God, then what is the basis of the non-belief? God's existence notwithstanding, atheists do not value arguments for God's existence. And this expressed often through emotion, not reason.
Atheism is simply "without belief in god(s)". NOT "there is/are no god(s)". And probably "your particular god(s) is/are logically incoherent".
If Atheism operated on its semantic description, it would be apathy or indifference. And regardless of your definitions, Atheism does posit that there are no Gods. It's the premise of your non belief; thus you saw fit to include "logically incoherent" which is tantamount to positing that God cannot "logically" exist.
DEISM is simply "any god(s) that is/are indistinguishable from no-god(s) is/are just as likely as no-god(s)".
That's not how they argue it, but your reduction does point out how nonsensical their rationale is. It's a sophistic attempt by Deists to conflate divinity with the Big Bang Theory.
@PressF4Respect:
Show me one piece of evidence, which cannot be applied to any other deity, to prove the existence of a particular god of your choosing (assume that deism is proven without a shadow of a doubt).
Why? Did I make the argument that there's "one piece of evidence"? Or did you assert "the reason theists use deist arguments is because there is no evidence"? You do not reconcile the burden of your assertion by placing the referendum on your opponent to falsify your argument. You posited the assertion; it's you who must support it. Once again, please elaborate.
@ludofl3x:
They presume little g god, prime mover. Not Supreme Being necessarily, that seems to me imbued with other properties that aren't necessary, like supremacy, for the proposition of starting the universe. But now we're both arguing distinction without difference, I think.
I suppose. Contextually, Deism was a response to Western monotheistic religion, namely Christianity and Judaism. While God isn't "necessary," God is implicit.
Created: